1. Title, director and release year?
Erin Brockovich, Steven Soderbergh, 2000.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? Erin Brockovich is a crass, loud-spoken, and uneducated single mother of three children that finds herself unemployed and living a life without much purpose. She is however, passionate about raising her children and for helping those in need. When she coercers a lawyer to hire her she discovers discrepancies in some files which leads her on a journey that ends up with her almost single-handedly bringing down a California power company accused of polluting a city's water supply.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The movie is based on a true story and Erin Brockovich is a real person. However this film really is also a movie, made for entertainment (with much emotional appeal). Whether or not the interactions between depicted characters are true or not, the actual incident of a woman fighting against a power company and the ensuing lawsuit is accurate.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film draws out legal, organizational (overly powerful corporations), and ecological sustainability problems. Many American laws were created with protecting the rights of the people in mind. As corporations legally became “individuals” in the eyes of the law they began to abuse and take advantage of these rules. In Erin Brockovich, PG&E, the power company, exploited the legal system and attempted to get away with making and people extremely sick and water toxic instead of spending money on research to fix the problem (the cost of covering it up was less than the cost of finding a solution). When Ed’s small legal firm tries to take the company to court there are many concerns about the unfair ways the case will be handled (no jury, one judge, etc).
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found that Erin’s skill in dealing with the Hinkley victims very impressive. Despite being quite uncouth she has a natural ability to connect to people (that she is not working with). Her character in the movie exampled this ability by proving that she had all the residents’ telephone numbers memorized. I suppose that I found this part of the film compelling as I would find that skill beneficial in that corporations could stay in touch with their consumer market – and not just see dollar signs, but people too.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The side story with Erin’s love life was undoubtedly added into add more emotional appeal to broaden the target audience. I did not enjoy it and thought it was quite unfair for the guy to not support Erin’s work. It also distracted from the story I did want to know about (but I realize that this is because I was watching the movie for the environmental message and not for entertainment). I also did not understand how at the end Erin was so happy about getting $330 million because even if that is the highest settlement a company had to pay at the time, PG&E was worth 28 billion – it doesn’t seem like they got punished. Also, that one lady at the end got $5 million. $330 million divided among 600 families is roughly $550,000 each, so some people were definitely losing out. Also, $550,000 doesn’t seem that much different than what PG&E was originally offering to pay anyway. I also thought that the guy at the end that just happened to work for PG&E and was fired but still just happened to have the documents Erin was looking for to be a little too “perfect”, unless that is really what happened in the original story (which I don’t know).
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film received numerous awards and grossed $28.1 million on its opening weekend. It went on to make $125.6 million in North America and $130.7 million in the rest of the world for a worldwide total of $256.3 million. Julia Roberts, the actress who portrays Erin Brockovich, was even named Best Actress at the BAFTA awards and at several others. It is clear that the film was responded to very positively. In fact, there are several sources I have come across that claim “Erin Brockovich” was a household name. In this way the audience the film best addresses is the everyday person who occasionally watches movies or goes to the theater for entertainment. Housewives and working females would probably be a specific segment targeted in that they might be able to relate to the title character a bit more.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Perhaps the film could have enhanced the environmental educational value by alerting viewers to similar cases in different locations (where viewers may even be affected).
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film doesn’t suggest any corrective actions because it is meant to be a biographical film, not an action inducing one. I suppose that people should be aware of where their water and electricity comes from, as well as the quality of water they are receiving at all times.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I wanted to know how much of this film was real and how much of it was Hollywood so I read this article that took note of several discrepancies (as noted by the actors and the people the film is based on). It is to be noted that while the general facts of the story are accurate, there are several “Hollywood-ed” elements, including a number of controversial and disputed issues. For example, the question of whether Erin Brockovich deliberately used her cleavage to gain access to the water board documents. The real Erin Brockovich denies trying to persuade people in this way, but does acknowledge that it may have had an influence. Also, she really did memorize the 634 plaintiff cases – due to her dyslexia she memorizes things so that she doesn’t have to read them.
In addition, the answer to my previous sentiment on question 6 is this: “In 1996 PG&E settled the case for $333 million. This was the largest settlement ever awarded in a direct-action lawsuit in the history of the United States. The lawyers received forty percent, which was a little over $133 million. As in the film, attorney Ed Masry rewarded Erin Brockovich with a $2 million bonus. The more than 600 Hinkley plaintiffs, many of whom had become seriously ill, were in the end left with $196 million to be divided between them. On average, each victim received $300,000…"
Obviously, not all of the victims were happy with the amount of money that they were given. Here is another excerpt from the article: Some did receive several million. Others received less. For example, Dorothea Montoya received $60,000; Christine Mace got $50,000; Lynn Tindell $50,000; Tiffany Oliver got $60,000. Plaintiff Carol Smith argued, "It didn't make sense why my husband, who's had 17 tumors removed from his throat, got only $80,000." After the residents, including Smith, were told that their awards would be based on their medical records, some claimed that their medical records were never looked at, "...no one ever looked at my medical records," said Carol Smith. "I'm sure of that because my doctors told me so after I asked." As a result, some of the plaintiffs appealed their settlements, seeking sums that they felt were more justified.” Most compelling is this quote by plaintiff Carol Smith in 2000, "The movie is mostly lies. I wish the truth would come out because a lot of us are upset. I understand the movie is going to make Erin and the attorneys out to be heroes. ...But where's the rest of our money?"
Erin Brockovich, Steven Soderbergh, 2000.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Erin Brockovich is a crass, loud-spoken, and uneducated single mother of three children that finds herself unemployed and living a life without much purpose. She is however, passionate about raising her children and for helping those in need. When she coercers a lawyer to hire her she discovers discrepancies in some files which leads her on a journey that ends up with her almost single-handedly bringing down a California power company accused of polluting a city's water supply.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The movie is based on a true story and Erin Brockovich is a real person. However this film really is also a movie, made for entertainment (with much emotional appeal). Whether or not the interactions between depicted characters are true or not, the actual incident of a woman fighting against a power company and the ensuing lawsuit is accurate.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film draws out legal, organizational (overly powerful corporations), and ecological sustainability problems. Many American laws were created with protecting the rights of the people in mind. As corporations legally became “individuals” in the eyes of the law they began to abuse and take advantage of these rules. In Erin Brockovich, PG&E, the power company, exploited the legal system and attempted to get away with making and people extremely sick and water toxic instead of spending money on research to fix the problem (the cost of covering it up was less than the cost of finding a solution). When Ed’s small legal firm tries to take the company to court there are many concerns about the unfair ways the case will be handled (no jury, one judge, etc).
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found that Erin’s skill in dealing with the Hinkley victims very impressive. Despite being quite uncouth she has a natural ability to connect to people (that she is not working with). Her character in the movie exampled this ability by proving that she had all the residents’ telephone numbers memorized. I suppose that I found this part of the film compelling as I would find that skill beneficial in that corporations could stay in touch with their consumer market – and not just see dollar signs, but people too.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The side story with Erin’s love life was undoubtedly added into add more emotional appeal to broaden the target audience. I did not enjoy it and thought it was quite unfair for the guy to not support Erin’s work. It also distracted from the story I did want to know about (but I realize that this is because I was watching the movie for the environmental message and not for entertainment). I also did not understand how at the end Erin was so happy about getting $330 million because even if that is the highest settlement a company had to pay at the time, PG&E was worth 28 billion – it doesn’t seem like they got punished. Also, that one lady at the end got $5 million. $330 million divided among 600 families is roughly $550,000 each, so some people were definitely losing out. Also, $550,000 doesn’t seem that much different than what PG&E was originally offering to pay anyway. I also thought that the guy at the end that just happened to work for PG&E and was fired but still just happened to have the documents Erin was looking for to be a little too “perfect”, unless that is really what happened in the original story (which I don’t know).
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film received numerous awards and grossed $28.1 million on its opening weekend. It went on to make $125.6 million in North America and $130.7 million in the rest of the world for a worldwide total of $256.3 million. Julia Roberts, the actress who portrays Erin Brockovich, was even named Best Actress at the BAFTA awards and at several others. It is clear that the film was responded to very positively. In fact, there are several sources I have come across that claim “Erin Brockovich” was a household name. In this way the audience the film best addresses is the everyday person who occasionally watches movies or goes to the theater for entertainment. Housewives and working females would probably be a specific segment targeted in that they might be able to relate to the title character a bit more.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Perhaps the film could have enhanced the environmental educational value by alerting viewers to similar cases in different locations (where viewers may even be affected).
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film doesn’t suggest any corrective actions because it is meant to be a biographical film, not an action inducing one. I suppose that people should be aware of where their water and electricity comes from, as well as the quality of water they are receiving at all times.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I wanted to know how much of this film was real and how much of it was Hollywood so I read this article that took note of several discrepancies (as noted by the actors and the people the film is based on). It is to be noted that while the general facts of the story are accurate, there are several “Hollywood-ed” elements, including a number of controversial and disputed issues. For example, the question of whether Erin Brockovich deliberately used her cleavage to gain access to the water board documents. The real Erin Brockovich denies trying to persuade people in this way, but does acknowledge that it may have had an influence. Also, she really did memorize the 634 plaintiff cases – due to her dyslexia she memorizes things so that she doesn’t have to read them.
In addition, the answer to my previous sentiment on question 6 is this: “In 1996 PG&E settled the case for $333 million. This was the largest settlement ever awarded in a direct-action lawsuit in the history of the United States. The lawyers received forty percent, which was a little over $133 million. As in the film, attorney Ed Masry rewarded Erin Brockovich with a $2 million bonus. The more than 600 Hinkley plaintiffs, many of whom had become seriously ill, were in the end left with $196 million to be divided between them. On average, each victim received $300,000…"
Obviously, not all of the victims were happy with the amount of money that they were given. Here is another excerpt from the article: Some did receive several million. Others received less. For example, Dorothea Montoya received $60,000; Christine Mace got $50,000; Lynn Tindell $50,000; Tiffany Oliver got $60,000. Plaintiff Carol Smith argued, "It didn't make sense why my husband, who's had 17 tumors removed from his throat, got only $80,000." After the residents, including Smith, were told that their awards would be based on their medical records, some claimed that their medical records were never looked at, "...no one ever looked at my medical records," said Carol Smith. "I'm sure of that because my doctors told me so after I asked." As a result, some of the plaintiffs appealed their settlements, seeking sums that they felt were more justified.” Most compelling is this quote by plaintiff Carol Smith in 2000, "The movie is mostly lies. I wish the truth would come out because a lot of us are upset. I understand the movie is going to make Erin and the attorneys out to be heroes. ...But where's the rest of our money?"
References:
http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/brockovich.php